Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35336130›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2022

Variable

William J Rhoads, Meril Sindelar, Céline Margot, Nadine Graf, Frederik Hammes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Microorganisms · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Flushing as a Control Measure forEnvironmental science & technology · 2026
    Article
  4. Biofilm · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Editorial: Special Issue: "Microorganisms · 2023
    Article
  13. Two-Year Evaluation ofmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. ControllingMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  15. FEMS microbes · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

William J RhoadsDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag-Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8306 Deubendorf, Switzerland.
Meril SindelarDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag-Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8306 Deubendorf, Switzerland.
Céline MargotDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag-Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8306 Deubendorf, Switzerland.
Nadine GrafDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag-Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8306 Deubendorf, Switzerland.
Frederik HammesDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Eawag-Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8306 Deubendorf, Switzerland.

Funding

Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office Aramis nr.:4.20.01Federal Office of Energy, Switzerland Aramis nr.:4.20.01Federal Office of Public Health Aramis nr.:4.20.01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When stay-at-home orders were issued to slow the spread of COVID-19, building occupancy (and water demand) was drastically decreased in many buildings. There was concern that widespread low water demand may cause unprecedented Legionella occurrence and Legionnaires’ disease incidence. In lieu of evidenced-based guidance, many people flushed their water systems as a preventative measure, using highly variable practices. Here, we present field-scale research from a building before, during, and after periods of low occupancy, and controlled stagnation experiments. We document no change, a > 4-log increase, and a > 1.5-log decrease of L. pneumophila during 3- to 7-week periods of low water demand. L. pneumophila increased by > 1-log after precautionary flushing prior to reoccupancy, which was repeated in controlled boiler flushing experiments. These results demonstrate that the impact of low water demand (colloquially called stagnation) is not as straight forward as is generally assumed, and that some flushing practices have potential unintended consequences. In particular, stagnation must be considered in context with other Legionella growth factors like temperature and flow profiles. Boiler flushing practices that dramatically increase the flow rate and rapidly deplete boiler temperature may mobilize Legionella present in biofilms and sediment.

Indexed as

boilerCOVID-19flushingLegionellalockdownrecommissioningstagnationwater agewater demandwater temperature

Identifiers

PMID35336130
PMCPMC8950775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.